Rider's tumble costly for pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rider's tumble costly for pilot
A Queenstown helicopter pilot has been ordered to pay $6000 "emotional harm reparation" to a woman thrown from her horse.
Rider's tumble costly for pilot | Otago Daily Times
Rider's tumble costly for pilot | Otago Daily Times
A Queenstown helicopter pilot must pay $6000 emotional harm reparation for his role in causing a woman to be thrown from her horse.
The woman sustained a broken pelvis and injuries that could spell early arthritis and childbirth difficulties after the pilot landed at Cardrona without noticing her - startling her horse, which threw her.
Paul James Horrell (32), owner of Horrell Contracting, was convicted in the Queenstown District Court yesterday of operating an aircraft in a careless manner after the victim - who was given name suppression - read a brief victim impact statement.
She described breaking her pelvis, being left with a twisted right side and being housebound for nearly two months, with a total recovery time of nearly two years and a prognosis of possible early-onset arthritis and an increased risk of jeopardy in childbirth.
Judge Kevin Phillips said the victim "suffered grievously and she's had two years of hell".
Horrell had been helping with the recovery of the engine of Haast helicopter pilot Morgan Saxton's aircraft. Mr Saxton died when he crashed the helicopter into Lake Wanaka in November 2008.
Horrell was flying with his girlfriend and a foreign rescue and recovery expert in the Hughes 369E on June 1, 2009.
Although his carelessness was "moderate", Judge Phillips said Horrell's victim was "there to be seen" as he prepared to land.
The woman, highly experienced with horses, was in clear conditions near the Cardrona Hotel and Judge Phillips said Horrell - an experienced pilot with 180 hours' flying time - had failed to undertake basic reconnaissance.
"Helicopter recce [reconnaissance] techniques require a person to check all is clear of people and property."
Judge Phillips said he had taken into consideration the victim's unfamiliarity with the new horse and that the horse was new to trekking, but any defence argument based on these factors was an "eggshell" defence - "one has to take the victim as one finds them", he said.
The victim dismounted after she "heard the helicopter directly above her - the horse then reacted and cowered down".
Horrell was familiar with the route. If he had done "simple" reconnaissance from an altitude of 300m, the victim might have had a chance to see him and "this tragedy might not have occurred".
Judge Phillips noted as mitigating factors Horrell's good character, genuine remorse and prior offer of $5000 in emotional harm reparation.
The woman sustained a broken pelvis and injuries that could spell early arthritis and childbirth difficulties after the pilot landed at Cardrona without noticing her - startling her horse, which threw her.
Paul James Horrell (32), owner of Horrell Contracting, was convicted in the Queenstown District Court yesterday of operating an aircraft in a careless manner after the victim - who was given name suppression - read a brief victim impact statement.
She described breaking her pelvis, being left with a twisted right side and being housebound for nearly two months, with a total recovery time of nearly two years and a prognosis of possible early-onset arthritis and an increased risk of jeopardy in childbirth.
Judge Kevin Phillips said the victim "suffered grievously and she's had two years of hell".
Horrell had been helping with the recovery of the engine of Haast helicopter pilot Morgan Saxton's aircraft. Mr Saxton died when he crashed the helicopter into Lake Wanaka in November 2008.
Horrell was flying with his girlfriend and a foreign rescue and recovery expert in the Hughes 369E on June 1, 2009.
Although his carelessness was "moderate", Judge Phillips said Horrell's victim was "there to be seen" as he prepared to land.
The woman, highly experienced with horses, was in clear conditions near the Cardrona Hotel and Judge Phillips said Horrell - an experienced pilot with 180 hours' flying time - had failed to undertake basic reconnaissance.
"Helicopter recce [reconnaissance] techniques require a person to check all is clear of people and property."
Judge Phillips said he had taken into consideration the victim's unfamiliarity with the new horse and that the horse was new to trekking, but any defence argument based on these factors was an "eggshell" defence - "one has to take the victim as one finds them", he said.
The victim dismounted after she "heard the helicopter directly above her - the horse then reacted and cowered down".
Horrell was familiar with the route. If he had done "simple" reconnaissance from an altitude of 300m, the victim might have had a chance to see him and "this tragedy might not have occurred".
Judge Phillips noted as mitigating factors Horrell's good character, genuine remorse and prior offer of $5000 in emotional harm reparation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always held the belief that it is the rider that transmits their status to the mount in circumstances of aircraft noise. Most horses I have had occasion to be in close proximity to when in flight, have only responded to my presence with curiosity or boredom. If they [horse] hear and see you before you get too close and surprise them, there seems to be no issue. Its when the rider gets startled and transmits that to the horse it becomes an issue.
Seems the rider was concerned enough to dismount and the horse sensed a problem.
But hey - I am sure there are more people experienced in horsey matters than I.
The victim dismounted after she "heard the helicopter directly above her - the horse then reacted and cowered down".
If he had done "simple" reconnaissance from an altitude of 300m, the victim might have had a chance to see him and "this tragedy might not have occurred".
But hey - I am sure there are more people experienced in horsey matters than I.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: surrey
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no sympathy for this pilot at all if no Recce was carried out. Horses can spook very easily we can see this when travelling on the roads. Many years ago as a teenager i took up horse riding for a few years and on more than one occassion riding different horses they would react quite easily to being frightend / surprised.
Even flying above 500' i have noticed horses begin to bolt due to the noise of the Heli whilst carrying out a recce prior to landing, some react differently especially if they are use to Helis flying low / landing. Mistakes occur but the onus is on the pilot.
Even flying above 500' i have noticed horses begin to bolt due to the noise of the Heli whilst carrying out a recce prior to landing, some react differently especially if they are use to Helis flying low / landing. Mistakes occur but the onus is on the pilot.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most horses I have had occasion to be in close proximity to when in flight, have only responded to my presence with curiosity or boredom. If they [horse] hear and see you before you get too close and surprise them, there seems to be no issue.
Its when the rider gets startled and transmits that to the horse it becomes an issue.
Horses are living, sentient beings like people and, like people, don't always react the way you think they will.
Cheers
Whirls
Have found horses tend to be ok if they see hear you, its the popping over a brow that spooks them.
Try a balloon flight drifting over horses then burning gas,
Try a balloon flight drifting over horses then burning gas,
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Carolina
Age: 75
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's a difference in cultures for you. As a boy growing up in Texas it was plainly put to me that control of my horse, come what may, was solely my responsibility. If I was 'un-horsed' by my mounts response to a rattlesnake or Ned firing his pistol or a buzz job by a T-28...I was to man up to my mistake ... and get back in the saddle...
Of course that was then and there. Nowadays I have no doubt in many of our more...liberal states...the same case would result in an award of $600,000 or even $6 mil...or what the heck...$60 mil...
Of course that was then and there. Nowadays I have no doubt in many of our more...liberal states...the same case would result in an award of $600,000 or even $6 mil...or what the heck...$60 mil...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with OBX.
If horses have no qualms with us firing shotguns in rapid succession after a sudden flush of quail why would a helicopter they can see and hear bother them?
It is most often the riders own nerves transmitted to the horses that causes these problems.
It's not like the pilot was flying nap of the earth sneaking over the hedge smacking the horse on its arse.
Don't blame helicopters if you have a high strung horse.
If horses have no qualms with us firing shotguns in rapid succession after a sudden flush of quail why would a helicopter they can see and hear bother them?
It is most often the riders own nerves transmitted to the horses that causes these problems.
It's not like the pilot was flying nap of the earth sneaking over the hedge smacking the horse on its arse.
Don't blame helicopters if you have a high strung horse.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: surrey
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birrdog, this is obviously a subject which has different interpretations, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
If horses are trained to handle situations / noises, crowds ie Police horses, then fine. However this is not the case everywhere. Whether the rider conveyed her surprise of the heli to the horse is not the point, a pilot has the responsibility to be aware of such situations which they are taught at a very early stage of their PPL, and if they are not alert or considerate in their flying then problems can and will occur.
However if we all agreed on the same topics life would be dull............
If horses are trained to handle situations / noises, crowds ie Police horses, then fine. However this is not the case everywhere. Whether the rider conveyed her surprise of the heli to the horse is not the point, a pilot has the responsibility to be aware of such situations which they are taught at a very early stage of their PPL, and if they are not alert or considerate in their flying then problems can and will occur.
However if we all agreed on the same topics life would be dull............
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Playing in the sand
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also agree with OBX, my girlfriend is a professional horse trainer/rider and I spent a lot of my off time grooming for her. Horses are big dumb animals with small brains and they spook at just about anything from a flock of geese overhead to a squeaky gate being opened. I have seen horses go damn near vertical on several occasions without throwing her off.
Riding horses is a dangerous activity just like flying helicopters. Put an inexperienced pilot in a situation he is ill equipped to deal with and somebody is likely to get hurt. Same with horses. Sounds like a clear cut case of a rider getting hurt due to lack of experience and attempting to ride a horse she had no business being on in the first place. The fact that the helicopter caused the horse to spook is insignificant, any loud noise such as a car driving by would have had the same result.
Riding horses is a dangerous activity just like flying helicopters. Put an inexperienced pilot in a situation he is ill equipped to deal with and somebody is likely to get hurt. Same with horses. Sounds like a clear cut case of a rider getting hurt due to lack of experience and attempting to ride a horse she had no business being on in the first place. The fact that the helicopter caused the horse to spook is insignificant, any loud noise such as a car driving by would have had the same result.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the helicopter caused the horse to spook is insignificant, any loud noise such as a car driving by would have had the same result.
So, for the same reason, we give horses plenty of space and slow down when driving, we should also be mindful of same when flying. The duty of care element would have entailed carrying out a recce.
Cheers
Whirls
I can see this is a touchy subject and appreciate where obx is coming from. Over here getting riders thrown is more of a sport with the ringers though. I have been on both ends. most pilots usually only pick on the experienced riders. The trick being to put the shadow directly over the horse.
Anyone who has been riding though should know that a helicopter is not very sneaky, i e you can hear them coming and should not be surprised by it. though i make no judgement on the case at hand.
Anyone who has been riding though should know that a helicopter is not very sneaky, i e you can hear them coming and should not be surprised by it. though i make no judgement on the case at hand.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be a technicality, but the court only awarded $NZ6,000 against the original offer by the pilot of $NZ5,000. To me this seems a small sum for the claimed lifetime loss of mobility/quality of living, so was this a 'guilty, but only partially guilty' recognition by the Judge?
Quite frankly it should never have got to court: probably an ambit claim which escalated to the point where legal costs would have been 10 times what was actually achieved: WOFTAM springs to mind. The pilot has accepted that he didn't do a recce, but even if he had would it have made a difference? We all know that horses are stupid and spook at anything, the rider is ultimately responsible for the control of the beast.
Whirls, these days I suspect that traffic being courteous to horses on country roads is the exception rather than the rule. Sad, but true I think
Quite frankly it should never have got to court: probably an ambit claim which escalated to the point where legal costs would have been 10 times what was actually achieved: WOFTAM springs to mind. The pilot has accepted that he didn't do a recce, but even if he had would it have made a difference? We all know that horses are stupid and spook at anything, the rider is ultimately responsible for the control of the beast.
Whirls, these days I suspect that traffic being courteous to horses on country roads is the exception rather than the rule. Sad, but true I think
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with heli, it should never have gone to court. There are quite some inconsitencies in it and I don't know the pilot from a bar of soap nor have I spoken to anyone over there about it or him. The poor old judge seems also to be suffering from either a lack of information or a lack of knowledge.
Firstly a quick look at the little burg in google shows large open areas opposite the main hotel, let's assume that is where the pilot is landing. The statement is that the pilot is familiar with the route, I.E. he must have landed there before recently so he certainly does not need to do a reccy. point 1
At 180 hours he is not experienced, he is barely in control of the aircraft and would not be picking up on all the visual stuff going on around him as his mental workload of a looming landing came nearer. He may not have even seen the horse, if he did and he then saw the rider dismount its fair to say he could have assumed, 'that's good I don't need to worry about that one!' point 2
Let's say there's a typo there and he actually has 1800 hours the same would apply, as almost certainly then he would have seen the animal, although whether he recognised it as a young flighty horse is very questionable and not to be expected. He is a pilot not a blasted horse expert. point 3
Let's say he was landing to the North, I don't know the wind chart for the day or even what the tradional 'doctor' is, however if he was landing to the north, given that the place is well south of the tropic of capricorn then his shadow at all times of the day would be well behind him. He would have not have even seen his shadow and as pointed out in a previous post, it is the shadow which always causes the most damage with animals. point 4
Likewise landing to the south his shadow would have been well away from him, so far as for him not to worry about it, even IF he knew that its presence was problematical. After all he is a charter pilot not a mustering pilot. point 5
Let's turn to the rider, if she only dismounted when the helicopter was then "above her", I would have to say that she is an extremely slow thinker, given that she knows that she is riding a young horse, all of which are unpredictable. She should have also presented the horse to the oncoming traffic at least and for sure not stood on the side away from the traffic, if that was what she did. point 6
She could definately be forgiven for not anticipating the shadow coming out of nowhere like a frightening scythe, if that is what happened to her. However calming words and early preparation when the noise is first heard nearly always saves the day.
All round, I think a smart move and good arguments by the pilots counsel to make the token offer.
Anyway this is all fodder for anyone else that gets vilified whenever a machine starts up a hundred miles away from a horse farm.
Firstly a quick look at the little burg in google shows large open areas opposite the main hotel, let's assume that is where the pilot is landing. The statement is that the pilot is familiar with the route, I.E. he must have landed there before recently so he certainly does not need to do a reccy. point 1
At 180 hours he is not experienced, he is barely in control of the aircraft and would not be picking up on all the visual stuff going on around him as his mental workload of a looming landing came nearer. He may not have even seen the horse, if he did and he then saw the rider dismount its fair to say he could have assumed, 'that's good I don't need to worry about that one!' point 2
Let's say there's a typo there and he actually has 1800 hours the same would apply, as almost certainly then he would have seen the animal, although whether he recognised it as a young flighty horse is very questionable and not to be expected. He is a pilot not a blasted horse expert. point 3
Let's say he was landing to the North, I don't know the wind chart for the day or even what the tradional 'doctor' is, however if he was landing to the north, given that the place is well south of the tropic of capricorn then his shadow at all times of the day would be well behind him. He would have not have even seen his shadow and as pointed out in a previous post, it is the shadow which always causes the most damage with animals. point 4
Likewise landing to the south his shadow would have been well away from him, so far as for him not to worry about it, even IF he knew that its presence was problematical. After all he is a charter pilot not a mustering pilot. point 5
Let's turn to the rider, if she only dismounted when the helicopter was then "above her", I would have to say that she is an extremely slow thinker, given that she knows that she is riding a young horse, all of which are unpredictable. She should have also presented the horse to the oncoming traffic at least and for sure not stood on the side away from the traffic, if that was what she did. point 6
She could definately be forgiven for not anticipating the shadow coming out of nowhere like a frightening scythe, if that is what happened to her. However calming words and early preparation when the noise is first heard nearly always saves the day.
All round, I think a smart move and good arguments by the pilots counsel to make the token offer.
Anyway this is all fodder for anyone else that gets vilified whenever a machine starts up a hundred miles away from a horse farm.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pacific
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jurno must have got this wrong.
The victim dismounted after she "heard the helicopter directly above her - the horse then reacted and cowered down".
- otherwise how did she end up so injured? Did the horse land on her? She told the court the horse threw her.
The victim dismounted after she "heard the helicopter directly above her - the horse then reacted and cowered down".
- otherwise how did she end up so injured? Did the horse land on her? She told the court the horse threw her.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite frankly it should never have got to court: probably an ambit claim which escalated to the point where legal costs would have been 10 times what was actually achieved
The pilot pleaded guilty to operating a Hughes 369 in a careless manner.
(Your guess is as good as mine re why it was considered necessary to prosecute him.)
To me this seems a small sum for the claimed lifetime loss of mobility/quality of living
The rider may be making a civil claim in respect of the other aspects. (I don't know.)
FL
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a criminal case, not a claim for damages in a civil court.
The pilot pleaded guilty to operating a Hughes 369 in a careless manner.
(Your guess is as good as mine re why it was considered necessary to prosecute him.)
The sum relates to "emotional harm reparation" only.
The rider may be making a civil claim in respect of the other aspects. (I don't know.)
The pilot pleaded guilty to operating a Hughes 369 in a careless manner.
(Your guess is as good as mine re why it was considered necessary to prosecute him.)
The sum relates to "emotional harm reparation" only.
The rider may be making a civil claim in respect of the other aspects. (I don't know.)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an experienced pilot and experienced rider, I would say that usually it is safer to stay on the horse rather than get off it. Horses, like people, can be easily spooked by something loud and noisy that they've never seen before suddenly appearing out of nowhere and moving quickly towards them.
The rider was obviously just out for a nice ride, did the heli have permission to be where he was? Was he landing at the hotel? If so, he should have ensured that there were no people/ children/ animals in the way. If he wasn't landing he should have maintained 500 feet from same.
Riders are usually sensible and won't ride towards something that is spooking their horse if they can avoid it. You don't face a horse towards something scary, horses are prey animals, and their natural reaction is to run away from something, not fight it, so by turning the horse directly at the helicopter it will make it more scared, not less.
Horses are usually used to cars, or else they are taken on quiet roads in the company of an experienced horse/rider to get used to them, whereas helicopters are not something a horse is likely to encounter on a normal day.
It is a bit like if you were walking down a country road on foot, and someone leapt out the hedge at you with a knife, you would probably not be expected to just stand there waiting to see what was going to happen next.
The rider was obviously just out for a nice ride, did the heli have permission to be where he was? Was he landing at the hotel? If so, he should have ensured that there were no people/ children/ animals in the way. If he wasn't landing he should have maintained 500 feet from same.
Riders are usually sensible and won't ride towards something that is spooking their horse if they can avoid it. You don't face a horse towards something scary, horses are prey animals, and their natural reaction is to run away from something, not fight it, so by turning the horse directly at the helicopter it will make it more scared, not less.
Horses are usually used to cars, or else they are taken on quiet roads in the company of an experienced horse/rider to get used to them, whereas helicopters are not something a horse is likely to encounter on a normal day.
It is a bit like if you were walking down a country road on foot, and someone leapt out the hedge at you with a knife, you would probably not be expected to just stand there waiting to see what was going to happen next.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In NZ you will find that there are very few large "emotional damage" claims. A couple of years ago two work deaths from company negligence cost the company about $100,000 so you aren't going to get much for anything less...
Re horses not seeing helicopters, NZ has more helicopters per person than any other country, and horses around that QT/Wanaka area would have to be deaf and dumb to have not seen a helicopter before. Around that area there would have to be at least 100 machines, along with numerous itinerants.
I Always try not to scare horses, but they are just like people, generally the people that ride them. Some are cool and down to earth, look at the Heli and have a bit of a trot around, others are hi stress and hi maintenance...
My 2c
Re horses not seeing helicopters, NZ has more helicopters per person than any other country, and horses around that QT/Wanaka area would have to be deaf and dumb to have not seen a helicopter before. Around that area there would have to be at least 100 machines, along with numerous itinerants.
I Always try not to scare horses, but they are just like people, generally the people that ride them. Some are cool and down to earth, look at the Heli and have a bit of a trot around, others are hi stress and hi maintenance...
My 2c
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me this seems a small sum for the claimed lifetime loss of mobility/quality of living,
The rider may be making a civil claim in respect of the other aspects. (I don't know.)
The journalism is so poor that it's hard to tell exactly what happened in the incident or in the court, but it's clear that this was a Crown case about operating an aircraft in a careless manner. The maximum fine available to the court for the offence was $NZ7000. Reading between the lines, it looks like the court imposed a fine and directed that it be paid to the complainant. Being fined $6000 out of a maximum of $7000 indicates that the court considered the incident to be pretty bad.
So, in the scheme of things, the pilot got clobbered, and, in my personal view, the judge got hoodwinked.
